Bombay High court slaps ₹10k costs on PIL for Sanatan Commission, State funding for Hindu rituals

The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Crimeophobia, a self-styled criminology firm that sought funding for Hindu rituals in Maharashtra's cave temples, formation of Transnational Sanatan Commission and a range of unrelated demands. [Crimeophobia v. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Ors]..In a strongly worded order, the Court described the petition as a "sheer abuse of the process of Court" and criticised the petitioner for attempting to impose personal ideas through judicial intervention."A writ of mandamus is issued by the superior Courts where infringement of any legal right is established. No mandamus can be issued merely for enforcing a particular thought of an individual or an organization, if it is not supported by any legal premise. Prayers made in the PIL petition against the UNICEF (United Nations Organization) and New Zealand, cannot be entertained by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," the Court said.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar slapped costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner and warned the body against the misuse of PILs for personal agendasThe PIL made several demands including allocation of a dedicated budget for Hindu rituals at cave temples, state-paid salaries for priests, and the establishment of Gurukuls (Vedic education centers) at select cave temples. The petitioner also requested the creation of a "Bombay Cave Temple Commission" and a "Transnational Sanatan Commission" to oversee religious properties and manage temple affairs. .Additionally, the petition sought the formation of an "Anti-Organized Crime Unit" under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and demanded the closure of a UNICEF-aided dairy teaching institute in Aarey, alleging that it was built on forest land.The Court observed that the prayers made were not only omnibus in nature but were also multiple in number covering diverse subjects.The Court also said that the issues raised were a product of petitioner’s figment of imagination and without any legal basis."The other prayers relating to establishment of ‘Anti-Organized Crime Unit’ or SIT or for establishing ‘Transnational Sanatan Commission’ or ‘Maharashtra Cave Temple Commission’ appear to be an outcome of fancies of the petitioner for the reason that no factual or legal basis, whatsoever, has been laid in the PIL petition," the order said..The Court also noted that it was at loss of words to find that the respondents arraigned in the petition were foreign bodies over which the High Court could not exercise jurisdiction. "We find ourselves at loss of words if we peruse the array of respondents where even the UNICEF, United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Consulate General of New Zealand, Chief of Defence Staff, Ministry of External Affairs and President of India’s Office have been arrayed as respondents. Even the averments made in the PIL petition are full of fancies which according to the petitioner, are based on some research said to have been conducted by him," the Court said.The Court made it clear that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any violation of fundamental rights or any issue of public interest justifying judicial intervention.Hence, it dismissed the plea with costs of ₹10,000 to be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within six weeks..The bench issued a stern warning against filing similarly frivolous petitions in the future. "In our opinion, the petition is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of Court which not only deserves to be dismissed but also calls upon us to issue a stern warning and even impose exemplary cost on the petitioner for having filed absolutely frivolous petition resulting in wastage of precious judicial time," the Court said in its order..Petitioner in-person Snehil Dhall appeared for Crimeophobia.Additional Government Pleader Abhahy L Patki appeared for State and other respondents. [Read Judgment]